It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- A federal judge declared the foundation of President Barack Obama's health care law unconstitutional Monday, ruling that the government cannot require Americans to purchase insurance. The case is expected to end up at the Supreme Court.
Of course, there is one additional way for states to win a fight about the constitutionality of health-care legislation: Make it unconstitutional. Article V of the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to require Congress to convene a convention to propose an amendment to the Constitution. If two-thirds of state legislatures demand an amendment barring the federal regulation of health insurance or an individual mandate, Congress would be constitutionally bound to hold a convention. Something like this happened in 1933 when Congress proposed and three-quarters of the states ratified the 21st Amendment, removing from the Constitution the federal power to prohibit the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol. But the very threat of an amendment convention would probably induce Congress to repeal the bill.
." Historically, insurance contracts were not considered commerce, which referred to trade and carriage of merchandise. That's why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states.
There are people who want to censor the internet. Some of them are in government, some of them are in industry. There are also people who want to keep the internet free. Some of them are in government, some of them are in industry. Those of us who want the internet to remain a medium for free speech should oppose the actions of the first group, wherever they appear, and support the actions of the second group, wherever they appear. The choice is not "government control vs. industry control" but "censorhip vs. freedom," and net neutrality serves the "freedom" side.
If you oppose net neutrality, you are on the side of the censors. If you support net neutrality, you are on the side of freedom.
That's it. That's all there is.
Originally posted by quackers
Originally posted by thegoodearth
So more gouging likely to pass on Tuesday...
If this passes, everyone should dump their ISP and go with WiFi.
Wifi is a good idea in principal but far from a solution given the range and the fact that you'd have little more than a local area network without access to the wider internet. In otherwords an intranet in which the only content is provided by those within it.
Sad fact is that the vast majority are unwilling to give up their facebook/msn/vod/skype ect ect ect, and as such the major ISPs will continue on.
Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by Whereweheaded
Again, just because it is not defended by the constitution, that does not mean that it is unconstitutional. Your other point is a valid one, but by your first argument, owning a table would be unconstitutional.
Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by Whereweheaded
Again, just because it is not defended by the constitution, that does not mean that it is unconstitutional. Your other point is a valid one, but by your first argument, owning a table would be unconstitutional.
Originally posted by CanadianDream420
DUH..
THAT'S why we have the new v6IP network. It's already been implemented just not "activated"...
They already had a solution for this problem many years ago.. Just like TSA scanners. They were built years ago, and the Christmas Bomber was whom activated this situation :S